#1
Alright, I got a test/quiz tomorrow in my AP US History class and part of it involves writing an essay. She gave us the topic before hand (posted below) and unfortunately for me I know nothing about it. Thankfully we can write an outline/web to bring to class, but the actual essay must be written in class.

Anyway, heres the essay question: "In what ways did the French and Indian War (1754 – 63) alter the political, economic and ideological relations between Britain and its American colonies? "

I'm going to do some hardcore studying tonight, but before I do can UG help me come up with some base ideas for my essay outline?
#6
Meh, since i don't need it any more, here's the outline I made two years ago:

The American Revolution: The Result of the French and Indian War

Thesis: The French and Indian War, due to its political and economic repercussions, planted the seeds of friction between the British government and the American colonists, ultimately leading to the American Revolution.

A. The War Itself (1754-1773 in America)
a. The colonial troops resented being treated “but little better than slaves” by the British officers.
b. The colonists didn’t provide the necessary food and housing for the quartered troops (angered the British).

B. Colonial Participation in the War
a. The colonists organized over 40000 troops from 1758-1759, much more than the British supplied.
b. The colonial troops weren’t formally trained like the British troops. As a result, they weren’t skilled at warfare and battle.

C. The Costs of the War
a. William Pitt, who was in charge of British military affairs, promised the colonies that if they raised the men needed for the war, Parliament would pay for most of the expenses (117).
b. The British debt almost doubled during the war, and conflicts arose about how to pay off the debt. This resulted in more taxation, which the American colonists felt that they didn’t deserve (119).
c. 1765: Stamp Act – The Stamp Act forced people to use special watermarked paper for official purposes. The colonists united in opposition to the Stamp Act, and caused riots and violence.
d. 1767: Townshend Duties – The Townshend Duties were external taxes passed to gain revenue for the Empire. They taxed glass, paint, lead, paper, and tea imported into the colonies. They led to the Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, written by John Dickinson. They also led to boycotting and violence, which led to further friction between the British and the colonists.
e. 1773: Boston Tea Party – It was an angry response to the Tea Act, which monopolized the export of tea to the British East India Company. The colonists feared that the British were conspiring to disturb the established colonial representative governments. A group of rebels threw 45 tons of tea overboard, destroying it.
f. The Coercive (Intolerable) Acts: Four Acts which were made as an angry response to the Tea Party. As a result, Boston Harbor was closed, the Massachusetts charter was revoked, and colonists’ lives were generally made harder.

D. England’s Circumstances as a Result of the War
a. The English plunged into double the debt which they had had before the war (from ₤72 million to ₤132 million).
b. The English taxpayers were forced to pay for the colonists’ military expenses on top of the high taxes they already paid.
c. The war led to a series of Acts, which led to boycotts in the colonies. These boycotts caused financial hardships for the British merchants.

E. The Treaty of Paris
a. In the Treaty of Paris, France gave up Canada and all of the claims to the territory east of the Mississippi River, and Spain ceded Florida to the British (118).
b. The war ended the conflicts between the French and the British for control of land in North America.
c. The American colonists no longer needed British support in order to maintain their land.
#7
Remove that shit, yawn, he should be doing his own homework.

EDIT:
I just read this through properly. Technically, he's just asking for notes, which could be copied and pasted off wikipedia or something anyway. So I guess it's fair.
I play by my own rules. And I have one rule; There are no rules... but if there are, they're there to be broken. Even this one.


Confused? Good.

Quote by CrucialGutchman
Sigs are wastes of my precious screen space.

^ Irony

Quote by RevaM1ssP1ss
LET ME HUMP YOU DAMMIT
#8
Hell, here's an essay I typed five years ago:

By the late 1700s, colonists had grown to become quite independent, living a life free of British taxes. Yet, the French and Indian War seared a pit of debt into the British. Parliament needed to pay not only for these debts, but Britain maintained a standing army in North America to protect the colonies from attacks of hostile American Indians. Parliament also needed to pay for this standing army. To pay for these, Parliament decided to raise money by taxing the colonists. This was the beginning of countless boycotts, protests, and arguments that began to divide Britain from the colonies more and more every day.

In 1764, Parliament passed the first law that was specifically designed to raise money from the colonies. This was called the Sugar Act, and it set duties, or taxes, on molasses and sugar imported by colonists. Many colonists, however, were less than happy about these new taxes they were required to pay.

Different colonists had different reasons for disfavoring the Sugar Act. The colonists had grown to become quite independent compared to Britain. Many colonial merchants believed that taxes were unfair and bad for business. Numerous colonists thought Britain did not have the right to tax the colonies at all with out their consent. Many colonists were angered in Britains choice to tax colonists.

The colonists, however, did not hide their anger and disagreement. A Bostonian lawyer named James Otis, for example, was one of the first colonists to discuss the issue of unfair taxation. James Otis wrote an essay in early 1764 criticizing the Sugar Act. He argued that neither Parliament nor the Crown could, as he put it, “take from any an any part of his property, without his consent in person or by representation.” No one in Britain had asked the colonial governments for their permission to be taxed, and there were no representatives for the colonies in parliament. Therefore, he concluded, the tax was not only unjust but violated the colonists’ rights. Local leader Samuel Adams agreed with James Otis at a Boston Town Meeting in 1764 that Parliament could not tax the colonies without their permission. He explained that consenting to the tax would be an unwise step. He captured the attention of colonists when he explained, “For if our trade may be taxed, why not our lands? Why not the produce of our lands and, in short, everything we posses or make use of?”

“No taxation without representation” could be heard throughout the colonies as colonists soon adopted the ideas of Adams and Otis. The Massachusetts House of Representatives approved the creation of Committees of Correspondence to help unite protestors. Each committee contacted other colonies and towns to share ideas and information about the new British laws and ways to challenge them. Boycotting was a popular method of protest. It was refusing to buy certain goods. Originating in Massachusetts, merchants agreed not to buy British clothing and other items until Parliament eliminated the new duties. Colonial women not only joined in the boycott, but in many households they were responsible for making or finding substitutes for boycotted goods. The boycott quickly spread to other colonies. Colonial merchants gained hope that their boycott would hurt the British economy and, therefore, would convince British officials to end the new taxes.

So when the British tried to raise money from the colonies by taxing them to pay off their debts of the French and Indian War and to maintain an army to protect colonists from hostile Indian attacks, the colonists responded by protesting, boycotting, and using the slogan, “no taxation without representation”. This was the emerging rebellious spirit of the soon-to-be-called Americans that would fight for whatever they believed in.
#9
Quote by break-me-in
Remove that shit, yawn, he should be doing his own homework.

EDIT:
I just read this through properly. Technically, he's just asking for notes, which could be copied and pasted off wikipedia or something anyway. So I guess it's fair.
My essay probably isn't though.


But I'm not gonna act like I've never used Sparknotes. Meh, ultimately it's the test that dictates how well he does.
#10
Wow, lots of Moral Orel's in here... Either way I'm gonna write the essay, what difference does it make who points me in the right direction?
#11
Quote by yawn
My essay probably isn't though.


But I'm not gonna act like I've never used Sparknotes. Meh, ultimately it's the test that dictates how well he does.


Not wholly. But he'll get from somewhere/someone else if not here/you so really who cares?
I play by my own rules. And I have one rule; There are no rules... but if there are, they're there to be broken. Even this one.


Confused? Good.

Quote by CrucialGutchman
Sigs are wastes of my precious screen space.

^ Irony

Quote by RevaM1ssP1ss
LET ME HUMP YOU DAMMIT
#12
Honestly dude, that stuff will be on wiki, how do you think I made it through college?